AND
Posted on 06/29/2005 12:59:23 PM PDT by pabianice
Just got back from the new version of "War of the Worlds." In short, this is an epic remake of the nifty 1953 version done by George Pal (later of "The Time Machine" with Rod Taylor, 1960). The FX are spectacular, of course, but the film just doesn't quite pull it off.
The story is shot through the eyes of Ray, Tom Cruise's character, so it lets a lot of action occur off stage. This tactic can do a lot for a story, but in Cruise's case, it doesn't work. His costars, including young Dakaota Fanning, are excellent, but ... we've seen it all before. Cruise looking desperate and put-upon. Fanning running the different shades of panic and dispair. Tim Robbins as a crazy pedophile (ok, this may just be good type-casting). A cast of hundreds of real extras and thousands of CGI people being vaporized -- neat, but again, we've seen it before, especially in the 1953 version.
This latest Spielberg version is just too full of logic and continuity holes to hold together. The alien Tripods have been buried here on Earth for tens or hindreds of thousands of years until they are activated today. WTF? Were the aliens waiting until we could fight back to launch their invasion, instead of easily taking-over 50,000 years ago? The aliens themselves ride lightening/EMP bolts down from space, arriving underground with the baggage of several thousand Gs. Can you say Puree of Alien? As in the 1953 version, the Tripods have protective force fields that deflect anything thrown at them. But when the aliens catch colds and start to die, they also conveniently manage to turn-off their shields so the remaining National Guard troops can take them out with Stingers and small arms fire. The EMP strikes fry all auto and machine electronics but leave cordless phones and video cameras running.
Even though this is a war movie, we get Hollywood's Guns are Bad! rap. When Cruise goes on the lam with his kids he takes his .357 with him, although he hides it from the kids because, you know, guns are 'bad.' When his car is hijacked and his family nearly killed, another character takes his gun and promptly murders a third with it (yes, guns are 'BAD,' even when you are trying to save your kids from being killed).
The aliens' death rays are wonderful eye candy, turning people into (antiseptic) flaming ash while leaving their clothes intact. Another WTF? Very 'green' and all. There are a lot of annoying gripes. A local ferry boat captain in one battle scene is wearing the cap of a US naval officer -- and the eagle is looking left -- something the US Navy changed in 1941. Oops X 2. Couldn't Spielberg do better than that?
As pure popcorn munching, the movie is fun and the tension holds up at a certain visceral level, but the mind is never engaged -- a requirement for the best movies. The major sets are great: a downed 747, horribly empty of bodies because everyone was vaporized in flight by that neat antiseptic death ray which, like the evil Neutron Bomb, kills people while leaving structures intact (apparently the Aliens like our architecture). The scene of the first Tripod breaking through the street and incinerating people is also a wonderful realization of set design. The cast does ok (although Fanning's wonderful horror expression is starting to get overused in movies), but again, with so many CGI people being vaporized, it all starts to glaze over. With the camera on Ray 100% of the time, his costars don't get to do very much. When Ray grabs some hand grenades, you know what he's gonna do: bring-down a Tripod that is trying to turn him into Soylent Red with which to fertilize Alien Kudzu (I am not making this up). It's kinda neat to see mashed humans being sprayed across the landscape like the operation of Lawn Doctor's evil twin, but human blood to fertilize plants from the planet Koosbane? Cummon! When the action finally moves to Boston, Spielberg is too lazy to recreate a view of Boston and we get action in what appears to be downtown Los Angeles. Maybe he just got tired.
My Freeper Rating: Hype: 9/10. Movie: 7/10. Spielberg could have done far better than remake a 52-year-old film that was pretty neat in its day. But then, most movie goers never saw the 1953 version. Their loss.
Joyce Kilhawik (sp?), of Boston's channel four news says the movie works 99 per cent for her, terrifying, great effects, but the ending is ludicrous, and the audience laughed outright. Writing in last scene is dreadful. Gross miscalculation. She's very disappointed.
Yeah, across the Mexican border.
I think that Batman will make Bale a major star, too. Apparently he has very loyal fans who call themselves "Baleheads".
He was great in American Psycho ! Nerdy, scary , hunky and funny.
Jeez---there have been so many batman movies! I'm waiting for the one that's called 'BATMAN LEAVES.'
AND
ltn72@charter.net on www.kerrycountry.org
So did you pick up on the political subtext that some are seeing in the film? I think O'Reilly was going to mention something about this on his show today. The word is that Spielberg is insinuating that we should just roll over instead of fighting the terrorists (who are of course the aliens), that things will work themselves out without a big fight. Did you see this message in there?
Hollywood's remakes are never as good as the original.Special effects are just a crutch for a bunch of no talent actors and a way of making the movie long enough to show.With so much special effects the new movies are nothing more than adult cartoons for the simple minded.
Thank you for the hunky pix of Christian Bale.
How is it humanly possible to have abs like that ? And you gotta admit, he's way way cuter than Cruise.
Yeah, but complaining about the way an eagle faces on a cap is silly.
I think Tom Cruise's career has jumped the shark.
JOyce is a real whackjob. She is easily starstruck and is really into Cruise and Spielberg. For her not to be happy you know it's bad.
Sure. It's harmless.
Roger that, RR. I liked Timmy a lot in `Jacob's Ladder', but then he met Susie in that baseball movie and woke up one morning a lefty pod-person . . & I don't need a lecture from Steve on evil handguns. (Squirming in chair a la Ebert.) Hollywood, Spielberg, Robbins, Cruise, et al. They just don't get it.
Not only is he way better looking but he's also a far better actor than Tom Cruise. Cruise plays the same characters over an over.
I've never seen "Mars Attacks". I heard it was funny. Is it worth renting?
Where did you get the stupid notion that Robbins was a pedophile? Can't you even leave your bigoted nature toward his politics out of this discussion?
He was insane from his ordeal. He simply made a comment on the basement stairs to Dakota Fanning while Cruise was sleeping that if anything happened to her dad, he'd take care of her. Cruise woke up and heard it and put her away from Robbins because he was unstable. That's all there is to that.
IMO, Cruise was not necessary for the success of the movie. It could have been an unknown. But Tom Cruise was adequate.
The star in the movie was the visual story itself.
What movie did you go and see?
Ray is told to drop his gun while one is pointed at his head...because the guy wanted the minivan. Unless I turned my head and missed it, his gun was never shot at anyone.
Just as in the book, earth's own bacteria makes the tripods vulnerable.
All in all, the movie gets 2 thumbs up from DCPatriot.
That, and $1.25 gets you a 16 oz. coffee at the 7-11.
"Mars Attacks" is definitely a movie worth renting. It's very funny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.